Lobsters are tasty, QED humans are tasty. But you won’t hear that because the SJWs are trying to ban my podcast ‘Cannibal’s Rights Movement.” Please send ELEVENTY BILLION CANADIAN AMERICAN DOLLARS to my Patreon account.

As I was listening to Jordan defend the need for hierarchies I was remind of an article about Tony Abbott in Crikey. Bernard Keane makes an interesting point that older white men like Peterson and Abbott find minorities a threat to their position and status within their hierarchies. That it’s the natural order of things for the right type of men to put at the top of the social pyramid, and that they of course are those men

But when minorities start protesting, then they are questioning the so called natural order. The right man might lose his rank and status due to consequences of the actions they’ve taken or the public comments they have made. Which could mean they in turn might lose their rank.

As I recall, there is a species of lobster where the individuals all gather together and line up to walk to a very deep area of the ocean for the winter. That lobster uses serotonin! I expect, therefore, that Peterson will be leading his fans on a long walk into the ocean depths soon! After all, we have the same neuroanatomy and behaviors as lobsters, so off you go, guys! You can come back next spring.

Oh, no, I’ve just realized, humans are smart! I mean, in theory. But our brains use serotonin! So all animals are as smart as humans! Because our brains are the same! Does it seem suspicious that the Jellyfish are so quiet? They must be thinking about something really profound. I wonder when they’ll be ready to publish.

It’s amazing just how dumb this argument is, really. You don’t even have to invoke lobsters. Vikings thought murdering someone who insulted one of your ancestors was completely reasonable, AND THEY HAVE THE SAME BRAINS AND BEHAVIORS AS WE DO, so clearly we must all accept that such murder is justified. Right? Right? I mean, it’s not like morality could be a social construct, obviously, because serotonin!

OH, well, that was fun, but really I must emulate the behavior of some other humans and punish my wife for contradicting me in public. Oh, wait, I’m not married because my behaviors don’t really match my cultures social norms that are not at all social constructs, but absolutely determined by brain chemistry. I wonder what’s wrong with me. I must not have any serotonin in my brain. There’s no other explanation.

I enjoy Jordan Peterson, even as an atheist. I think he’s a good person, and his message isn’t toxic. His talks remind me of high-school English where we would stretch the meaning and interpretation of every line way past the point of credulity. But it was fun! Peterson is kinda the same. He’s got a great vocabulary, and great a command of the English language and the way he interprets certain aspects is a big stretch – but is fun to think about and listen to! And occasionally he has some great insights.

The reason why Jordan Peterson exists as a public figure is because he took a stand on something that probably would never come up in his life – i.e. a person asking to be referred by some zany pronoun (‘ze’, ‘zer’, etc.). I live in a lefty university town and there’s a bunch of ‘SJWs’ in my circle and it never comes up. I think one person transitioned and requested (very nicely and politely) on Facebook that they be referred as a ‘they’ – meh. No skin off my back. That some Professor in some University took this kind of a stand in itself isn’t out of the ordinary either. Professors tend to be full of themselves and think themselves more important than they actually are (like Doctors). And I say this with affection because I have tenure-track friends in academia, and friends who lecture on contract, or do grad work, or post-docs. As a side note Academia is an interesting bubble – in many ways it gets really disconnected from the ‘working’ population.

But anyway, Peterson is famous because a bunch of kids, backed up by adults and a university administration who should know better, completely freaked out and lost their minds … multiple times on multiple occasions and he was called everything from bigot to racist to whatever. This is the gas-lighting that Pinker was talking about that leads to cognitive dissonance in the general population because nobody really sees anything controversial in things he says but for some reason a crazy fringe thinks he’s worse than Hitler. The exact same situation occurred with Bret Weinstein. He took a stand on something completely inconsequential, kids overreacted, riots ensued, adults and administration did not step in to establish some sanity and now he’s famous.

As a trans person I can tell you that personal pronouns are more than slightly important. Our safety and dignity rely on it. You are also either misinformed or being disingenuous about which pronouns he is unwilling to use. He has advocated on many TV shows here in Canada against bill C-16 which extended protections for trans Canadians and specifically advocated that people should not have to use any pronouns requested by a trans person. Fortunately the bill passed in spite of him testifying against it.

I have had several professors like Jordan Peterson who misgendered me and it was a horrible experience. It basically served as a dog whistle for every bully in the class that I was a target that would get no defense from the administration. I had people follow me to my bus stop singing “Dude looks like a lady”, try to trip me and damage my materials, constantly call me names behind my back, and even had fellow nursing students try to sabotage my ability to care for patients so that I would get removed. Also, the misgendering and bigotry made it so I had to fear if I would get fairly judged on any assignment I ever turned in.

This is my way of saying you can defend it as no big deal but that is because you are in a position where it does not effect you.Some of us are not so lucky.

@Danny Husar
What the fuck are you babbling about? Kids overreacted about what? I saw the videos that you mention. Jordan Peterson is actually being a dumbass in all of them. For example, he claims “if they make a law about him having to use a person’s desired pronoun, he would oppose it and do the opposite, because you cannot force him do something by passing a law.” So I’m guessing Jordan B. Peterson also likes stealing and murder because there are laws against that. So in those videos, Jordan B Peterson babbles and babbles and stays stupid and once when finally the students shows a tiny bit of strong reaction your dumbass conclusion is that “Ah, there you see? Those kids got angry. Damn those kids! Over-reaction! And they called him names! Bad kids! Don’t call people names!”

Why is it that some don’t have problems using preferred pronouns with cis people but do with trans people? It’s not like bringing a personal sacrifice or something. It doesn’t do any harm, it costs nothing, it is about the easiest thing someone can do. Even if it was obliged by law – so fucking what?

I think one person transitioned and requested (very nicely and politely) on Facebook that they be referred as a ‘they’ – meh. No skin off my back.

That’s a healthy attitude. So why, when Peterson does not say “meh” but instead goes on a prolonged rant about how he refuses to accept other people’s preferences, do you characterize everyone else as over-reacting, but Peterson gets a pass?

Professors tend to be full of themselves and think themselves more important than they actually are (like Doctors).

When a student asks me to make a reasonable accommodation, I do so. Does that make me “full of myself”? But when Peterson refuses, he is just a regular guy who is fun to listen to.

>So why, when Peterson does not say “meh” but instead goes on a prolonged rant about how he refuses to accept other people’s preferences.

I’ve heard him say he has no problems using traditional pronouns when referring to transgender students. So he would use the preferred ‘he’ or ‘she’ pronouns requested by the individual. To me that’s a good place to start.

The entire thing is a bit academic because he was never actually asked to use one of the more creative pronouns (xe, xer, etc.) but complained about it anyway. And then he was protested for things he technically never did.

>Does that make me “full of myself”?

That’s not what I meant to convey. Here’s kind of what I meant by it: People that tend to have very deep knowledge in a specific niche area, tend to not realize their limitations in other areas and tend to think very highly of themselves or at least come across that way. As I say that, I want to underline the fact that this is meant to be good-natured teasing more than a hostile statement. Sometimes, because they have such high opinions of themselves, they may .. be a little difficult and inflexible. In Peterson’s case, I think his objections to the pronouns usage requirements were overstated and overblown but he worked himself into taking this grandiose stand to save the future of humanity because he’s a little full of himself. On the other end, that he decided to take this stand is also no that big of a deal. Certainly it shouldn’t have elicited the level of hostile and negative reaction that it did.

In Peterson’s case, I think his objections to the pronouns usage requirements were overstated and overblown but he worked himself into taking this grandiose stand to save the future of humanity because he’s a little full of himself. On the other end, that he decided to take this stand is also no that big of a deal. Certainly it shouldn’t have elicited the level of hostile and negative reaction that it did.

Imagine that he was talking about First Nations or black people instead of trans people. Would you still say his statements were “no big deal?”

You’d have to give me a specific example. But to anticipate your follow-up, I think the newly invented (and continually invented) pronouns are a bit out there. I don’t think that somebody not using them is equivalent to calling a black person some ugly racial slur.

I’ve heard him say he has no problems using traditional pronouns when referring to transgender students. So he would use the preferred ‘he’ or ‘she’ pronouns requested by the individual. To me that’s a good place to start.

“Traditional pronouns” does not mean what you thought it means and it’s almost the opposite of “[using] the preferred ‘he’ or ‘she’ pronouns requested by the individual”. Just like “traditional gender roles” does not mean women can have professional career choices (or men can have family-focused life choices) under such roles.

Thanks for putting together specific criticisms in the video. It’s a real service, connecting the dots for us. Lacking sufficient education in biology to immediately recognize falsehoods promulgated by dilettantes (true for me in multiple specialties and hard sciences), I find it difficult to dispel bogus claims, which then typically remain on skeptical hold indefinitely. Many folks among the lay public are in similar positions; though some clearly adopt Peterson’s positions with gusto. He has clearly made himself a part of the public discussion and is correct about some things while being egregiously wrong about others. Unable to peer into his mind and guess motivations, I’m less likely than most perhaps to discard him totally or label him a charlatan.

I think the newly invented (and continually invented) pronouns are a bit out there

“Oh no! The world is moving on and I can’t be arsed to keep up!”

Is it too much to ask someone how they prefer to refer to themselves, if there were ever any indication about it falling outside the commonplace he or she? Would you behave the same to someone with regard to their first name, insisting upon only addressing them as Richard even if they expressed a preference for Rich, Rick or Dick?

I’m not defending the asshat Peterson, but I think his position is actually a little different. My friend made me watch a video by him. (It was most fortunate.) I got the distinct impression that it’s more about free speech rights to Peterson. He says that he’s generlaly willing to use the pronoun of choice of transgender people. However, he is throwing trans people under the bus in his protest against the compelled speech law, and I definitely do not appreciate that nor condone that.

@32
Crossposting from another thread kinda but Jordan has been anything but consistent. He’s said that:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

He also goes on to explain that he thinks the biological sex/gender identity/gender exprssion distinction is a cultural marxist snowjob that turns social constructionism into state dogma.

To Proivil
I see. I guess he restricts his willingness to use the pronouns of choice to the “traditional” pronouns, “he” and “she”. Thanks for letting me know. And for emphasis, I already thought that he was an assaht.

It’s kind of important to remember, here, that Peterson has a beef with a specific adjustment to the Canadian human rights legislation (Bill C-16) that he thinks is going to wind up with a huge fine or jail time. He’s full of shit, of course. You can see an actual human rights lawyer, with actual knowledge of Canadian human rights jurisprudence, make Peterson look like an idiot (admittedly not a challenging task) here (Youtube -TVOntario debate).

@39 Oh, I know. There are any number of insane things that we could pick on. For example, per the video, he believes there is a literal “Marxist cabal” at work destroying our freedomz. The guy’s a loon.

How on earth did lobsters come into his arguments? There is something I am clearly not getting. Hierarchies exist in pretty well all social species I’m thinking. Why not compare humans to other vertebrates – sheep, chickens, kangaroos, rabbits, and, hey, Great Apes? Just a guess, but I reckon early hominid species almost certainly had hierarchies like chimps and gorillas. But so what? How far does this take us when considering the effects of millions of years of physical evolution and cultural development in the genus Homo? I must be missing something here.

nomdeplume: He’s basically just making the naturalistic fallacy, but dressing it up with some misapplied science.
Peterson is trying to justify a particular human social hierarchy he likes. He’ll claim he’s only talking about the (uncontroversial) existence of human social hierarchies in very general, of course, but elsewhere he’ll defend current hierarchies using other naturalistic arguments, so this amounts to the same thing with an additional layer of deniability.
For this purpose it’s best to point to very distantly related species, because he can say “look, hierarchies are SO super duper natural, even animals as alien to us as lobsters have them!”.

One of his other videos is “Debunking White Privilege”. Only a white man with loads of entitlement could possibly miss all the societal privileges he enjoys.

I would really enjoy learning more about the graphic that shows when the various classes/orders diverged in time and the science that reveals genetic time-clocks. A friend who draws fossil creatures for a living and I were discussing the evolution of body plans and the basic geometry of the first triploblast animals with three part divisions and asymmetry. Clearly the trend for terrestrial animals has been bilateral mirror symmetry, but marine creatures exhibit diverse body plans up until the early Ordovician. I can see why some of the Edicarans now classified as holdfasts for frond shaped animals were once considered fungi or algae. Geometrically, they do have the same basic form as flowers and fruit.

@32 — Yeah I had a similar experience I did take the extra steps of actually looking up the things being referenced (in this case the 16C amendment to a Canadian law) and I really couldn’t square the rhetoric with the facts. If he had taken issue with the law (it’s been around since the mid 80’s and suggested how he would reform that I could see a point to what he was doing). The amendment was basically the addition of the phrase “and gender Identity”. Protesting that amendment makes you look like a transphobe whether or not you are so think that is where a lot of the back lash came from.

However, he is throwing trans people under the bus in his protest against the compelled speech law, and I definitely do not appreciate that nor condone that.

As has already been mentioned multiple times in this thread: there is no “compelled speech law”. Peterson’s interpretation of the law in question is utter nonsense. He’s throwing trans people under the bus in protest against a figment of his own imagination. This has been pointed out many times, yet he persists, so at some point we have to start wondering whether throwing trans people under the bus is what’s actually important to him.

Porivil Sorrens, @ #39

As mentioned above, he thinks all 3rd gender pronouns and the fundamanetal ideas behind the popular idea of transgenderism are an evil radical leftist cultural marxist conspiracy.

Sharing your toys
Parking restrictions
That hot barista who won’t make eye contact with him no matter how many times he tries to talk to her
The asshole who cut him off in traffic this morning
Clouds
The abstract concept of the colour mauve
This comment

@49
I didn’t ignore Anna. Anna provided commentary on her personal experience – I’m not going to argue against her personal experience.

I made my feelings clear however. I don’t think it’s a human right violation or a big affront to human dignity if someone does not wish to use one of the new pronouns (‘xie’, ‘xer’, etc.) to refer to someone. I think it’s a nice thing to do if one does it.

Just a guess, but I reckon early hominid species almost certainly had hierarchies like chimps and gorillas.

Did they also throw poop?

rq
I bet you a fiver that I can correctly guess Danny Hussar’s gender whether they’re cis or trans. Hey, it’s all good fun, right? Doesn’t negatively impact Danny Hussar’s life, right? Worst that could ever happen to them was some uppity trans person telling them their preferred pronouns were ze/zir.

—

Imagine that he was talking about First Nations or black people instead of trans people. Would you still say his statements were “no big deal?”

I have the nagging feeling that they’d turn Quevenzhané into “Quinny” because it would be ridiculous to expect them to pronounce such a name!

I don’t think it’s a human right violation or a big affront to human dignity if someone does not wish to use one of the new pronouns (‘xie’, ‘xer’, etc.) to refer to someone. I think it’s a nice thing to do if one does it.

Gee, that means you don’t know how or care to be polite to people, and wish to use mircroagressions to keep them “in their place”. Your attitude stinks.

@54
>I bet you a fiver that I can correctly guess Danny Hussar’s gender whether they’re cis or trans.

Ok. What would that accomplish?

At some point you have to justify a position (or a government policy) on something other than personal feelings. Yes, it would be nice if everyone said “Please” and “Thank-you”, but if they don’t it’s not a human rights violation and it doesn’t need to be written into law. And yes, I do find it strange that not-using pronouns invented in the last few years is considered an affront to human dignity (and this is purely an Anglo-sphere phenomenon).

@55
>Gee, that means you don’t know how or care to be polite to people, and wish to use mircroagressions to keep them “in their place”.

At some point you have to justify a position (or a government policy) on something other than personal feelings.

Way upthread anna explained to you why this isn’t about transpeople’s “feelings”. Do you think we avoid the n-word just because it hurts feelings? (Oh shit, you probably do)

Ok. What would that accomplish?

It would be evidence for the fact that you’re talking about the lived experiences of people without having the slightest clue about those experiences. You are extrapolating horribly from “this is a non issue for me as a cis dude (I’m right, am I?)”. It’s like saying hunger isn’t a problem because you’ve eaten.

(and this is purely an Anglo-sphere phenomenon).

Bull-fucking shit.
Germany recently decided that there must be more options than “male” and “female” on birth certificates, Sweden officially recognised a neo pronoun.

I made my feelings clear however. I don’t think it’s a human right violation or a big affront to human dignity if someone does not wish to use one of the new pronouns (‘xie’, ‘xer’, etc.) to refer to someone. I think it’s a nice thing to do if one does it.

Oh, nonsense. Stop bullshitting.

(I’m assuming your pronouns are he/his. If not, adjust the pronoun in the following paragraph to one that is incompatible with you).

You’d start throwing massive tantrums a few days into being referred to as she/her consistently by almost everyone in various daily encounters. You’d consider it unacceptable and will demand that people use he/his. You’ll not consider it an optional “nice thing to do”.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone said “Please” and “Thank-you”, but if they don’t it’s not a human rights violation and it doesn’t need to be written into law.

Good thing that there was no such law on the books, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

And yes, I do find it strange that not-using pronouns invented in the last few years is considered an affront to human dignity (and this is purely an Anglo-sphere phenomenon).

Citation fucking needed. Plenty of my nonwhite friends have mentioned their desire and struggle to form third gender pronouns in their native language (hence the proliferation of the gender neutral “Latin@/Latinx” signifier.)

@61
Fair enough, but I’d add that the issue is also over the recognition and acceptance of 3rd gender identities, which extends to societies with gender-neutral languages.

Bit of a retcon, but given that Peterson’s beliefs seem to be “I won’t aknowledge these people by using their preferred pronouns bc both their pronouns and their ideas about gender are part of a cultural marxist conspiracy”, it was a genuine oversight on my part.

Not only does Peterson hold repugnant (which apparently magically get explained if you watch all 10,000 hours of his youtube speeches) views on lobsters and transgender issues, he is also vehemently opposed to diversity in general, at least its promotion within society. His recent talk at the farm bureau, which ostensibly was supposed to be about something completely different, was a 45 minute rant in which he suggested that any high school student who hears phrases such as Diversity, Inclusivity, Equity, White Privilege, Gender – should leave their classes as they are being indoctrinated.

He perpetuated his lies on what Bill C16 did.

He makes the rather odd claim that there is no evidence at all that diversifying your workplace increases the number of groups that are included or increases diversity of thought. This seems an odd statement as logically it follows that a more diverse workplace will be more diverse. His argument here, literally, is that by making your workplace more diverse you don’t make your workplace more diverse.

He makes, quite seriously, the claim that anyone “playing this game” (striving for a diverse inclusive workforce) is part of a fifth column effort to undermine the very organization they work for. (which probably comes as a surprise to huge numbers of people who work corporate HR)

He states “the past 60 years has been non stop feast of rights, and there is a big problem with that” “it isnt rights that add meaning and dignity to life” and “you can’t have endless conversations about rights without creating a conceptual vacuum”

In the space of his 45 minute spiel he focuses on 150 and 60 years as meaningful and *bad* lines in the sand in thinking about diversity, equity etc – which is rather telling given when slavery ended and when the civil rights movement was.

He rants about the West being ‘culture of the heroic individual who confronts chaos and transforms it into habitable order’ ”

Amusingly he ended his talk getting tearful about some of his christian apologetics and then went on to sell his book.

At no point actually addressing the issues he was invited to speak on. He’s super.

For the record using they, their, them, and themselves as singular pronouns is not a recent invention. William Shakespeare did it at least three times (Hamlet, Act III, Scene 3; A Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3; The Rape of Lucrece).

As has already been mentioned multiple times in this thread: there is no “compelled speech law”.

I don’t understand. From the video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc
It seems that there is. It seems everyone else on the show granted that Peterson could be fined for willfully using the wrong pronouns in defiance of the law. That’s a compelled speech law. I hope this disagreement is not over subtleties like “it’s not a compelled speech law, it’s just a law that forbids certain speech”, and if so, I say that ripping into me for the distinction is silly and not productive, but I’ll acquiesce in advance: Sure, it’s a law that forbids certain speech, and not a compelled speech law per se. If I cared, I might make a linguistic argument that there’s really no practical difference in this context, but I don’t care enough to right now.

Enlightenmentliberal, I can’t speak to an hour long video, though if there are particular remarks that are worth discussing, it’s incumbent on you to highlight them. It’s pretty clear within Canadian legal circles that Peterson was flat out wrong about bill C-16. C-16 modified two aspects of Canadian law with respect to gender identity — the first is the Canada Human Rights Act, which regulates federal activities, and does not apply to the conduct of private citizens (and thus would not immediately apply to Peterson). The second area is the sections of the Canadian Criminal Code that pertain to hate crimes. Since these sections require you to commit another criminal offense, these sections could not be used against Peterson. See here for a statement from the Canadian Bar Association, and here.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.

I am further confused. It seems like you provided a source that supports my position, and contradicts your position. Care to comment?

EL, without even following your link, I note you just quoted from a piece titled “no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse” going by its URL.

I infer from that that the piece supposedly claims what it says — so that when you write that it “supports my position, and contradicts your position”, you are claiming it claims the opposite of what it says. You may be right, I need only invest the effort into looking.

To lambdacalc
It seems like my video cites the text of the original law, and also cites the same source that you did, and quoted the same section that I just quoted.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc
Timestamps 22:32 and 26:30.

Again, to be as clear as possible, I don’t know if purposefully using the wrong pronoun qualifies as “hate speech” under Canadian law, and I’m not making that point. I am saying, that from all of the sources that I can find, it seems like purposefully using the wrong pronoun will be an offense that is punishable by a fine, e.g. criminal, at the discretion of some government bureaucrat (or judge or lawyer).

To John Morales
Dunno. It looks like English, and I think I can read English, and it appears to say quite plainly that it’s punishable by a fine. I provided a quote from it for you to read too. It probably took you longer to write that post than to read the several lines of quote in my post. Maybe it’s riding on some esoteric definition of “criminal” which excludes certain kinds of petty fines. I don’t know.

EnlightenmentLiberal: No, you’re being confused by the legalese. Legalese is not really English (despite the superficial resemblance), and attempting to interpret it as such almost always leads to misunderstanding.

Firstly, the section you actually quote has to do with discriminatory employment practices, as so obviously can’t apply to private individuals. In fact, it only applies to “the federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction”. Also, this is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The distinction between civil law and criminal law is not in any sense “esoteric”. The linked piece isn’t particularly explicit about this because they seem to be making the (not unreasonable) assumption that everybody reading knows the difference.

Secondly, there is the matter of the sentencing for hate crimes. This merely states that crimes motivated by matters relating to “gender identity and expression” can be considered hate crimes. The important thing to note here is that it does not create any additional crimes, and that merely refusing to use someone’s preferred pronoun is not actually a crime in itself. It only becomes significant when it relates to the motivation for an existing crime. So, for example, if you beat the crap out of someone as the result of an argument about their preferred pronouns, your refusal to use their preferred pronouns becomes actionable as evidence that your assault was a hate crime, which attracts higher penalties.

I would suggest that you go back and read the linked piece rather more carefully and thoroughly.

PS:
Again, I don’t know the Canadian system, but the civil vs criminal distinction is like the American system, then it’s worse for it to be a civil offense compared to criminal. In a criminal trial, the defendant enjoys more protections, and the presumption of innocence. I am particularly incensed by the increasing use, in the United States at least, of civil fines for what should be handled in criminal court. For example, gang injunctions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_injunction
/rant

PS:
Thanks for being so patient with me Dunc, and so knowledgeable. You’re the best.

Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.

The thing is – he is wrong.

That’s a straight-out assertion.

The justification:

Bill C-16 does three things.

First – It adds the words “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This will prevent the federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction – like banks – from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

So the domain of applicability applies to the federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction.

The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code. So surely this must be what Peterson is getting at? Criminalizing something? Well, lets take a closer look.

It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.

So there already exists criteria, but this change will include gender identity and expression, rather than restricting it to colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability. Only within the domain of applicability, of course.

Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.

Same thing, same basis, different section.

(And again, only within the domain of applicability)

—

Way I see it, it will essentially “criminalise” gender bias about as much as colour, religious, sexual, age or mental conditions are already criminalised.

(But that is supposedly Marxist and so forth, unlike the other bases)

—

Maybe it’s riding on some esoteric definition of “criminal” which excludes certain kinds of petty fines. I don’t know.

Well, yeah — but as noted, only if one is part of the federal government or a business within federal jurisdiction. That’s not a general claim, any more than military rules that apply to the military are, for example.

Why are you focusing on “hate speech”? In one of most recent posts before your post, I expressly denied the position that I’m claiming that it’s hate speech, and instead merely that it’s punishable by a fine. The section that I quoted expressly did not deal with the hate speech provision – something that you would know if you bothered to read my post at all, and especially if you read the source text.

You do this many times to me, clearly strawman me, and I can only assume maliciously due to the large history of repeated incidents. It would help if you bother to read what I write, and then you wouldn’t strawman me.

Tangent: Dunc gave the correct correction (and I again thank him for it). The section that I quoted was not a general prohibition on such speech. The non-“hate speech” change only dealt with discrimination in certain contexts, i.e. employment, and I assume school, which means it would still apply to Peterson in his job, but it wouldn’t affect what he said on the street or on tv.

I am not Jordan Peterson. I am not defending everything the person has ever said. (Hell, at this point, I’m defending nothing that they have said.) Could you please engage with me, instead of doing what I can only assume is conflating me with the evil villain of the week, Jordan Peterson, and baggaging me with everything that the villain of the week has said?

Legit question – are you trolling me? For example, in the recent thread on Marcus’s blog, you encouraged and applauded Lofty for trolling me. Now, it seems that you’re trolling me here. Almost every interaction that I have with you involves you never reading what I write, and going off half-cocked, strawmanning me in the process, and generally being a completely miserable and dishonest asshole. Is there any way that I can convince you to knock it off? Beg? Plead? Sacrifice a my firstborn on a full moon to the gods, old and new?

EnlightenmentLiberal, I genuinely thought I was responding to your comment. Still do.

Legit question – are you trolling me? For example, in the recent thread on Marcus’s blog, you encouraged and applauded Lofty for trolling me. Now, it seems that you’re trolling me here.

Legit answer: no. I’m just responding to you as I would with any other commenter.

(Also, what happens elseblog is not relevant here)

Almost every interaction that I have with you involves you never reading what I write, and going off half-cocked, strawmanning me in the process, and generally being a completely miserable and dishonest asshole. Is there any way that I can convince you to knock it off?

The only solution is for me to treat you as a special case — someone to whom I must avoid responding to.

I suppose I can (again) try to avoid responding to your comments on the basis that it upsets you.

To John Morales
I don’t think you treat me like anything else. However, if I grant that proposition, then you need to slow down and read more carefully for all posters. I mean – come on: I explicitly stated that I’m not defending his claim that it’s “hate speech” under Canadian law, and what is the very next thing that you do? You provide some quotes regarding Jordan Peterson and discussions about Canadian “hate speech” law.

I am very nonplussed by your not-pology.

I am also very upset too given the context that you implicitly stated that you are not even bothering to read what I write. Particularly, here, where you say that you only need to read the URL to know the contents of the link, and then you imply that you’re not going to look beyond the URL by ending with “(heh)”.

EL, without even following your link, I note you just quoted from a piece titled “no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse” going by its URL.
[…]
You may be right, I need only invest the effort into looking.
(Heh)

I’m just going to reply noting that Dunc got things right – but also that the OHRCs policy is not the new bill. This might seem pedantic, but the federal bill was the object of Peterson’s complaints, and Peterson spoke in the Canadian Senate about C-16 doing these things.

In any case, as to the OHRC policy – Dunc got things right, but it’s worth noting that it predates C-16 by a couple of years (I was explicitly referring to C-16). Here the requirements on Peterson are more general, and they follow from requirements on the university and his status as an employee — similar to regulations that would make discrimination against women or religious groups illegal. These laws mainly empower the university to impose responsibilities on employees — so Peterson would be far more likely to face discipline within the university than a fine mandated by a judge.